About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CSPAN2 35
CSPAN 29
CNNW 14
CNN 8
MSNBCW 4
WUSA (CBS) 3
LINKTV 2
COM 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 120
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 120 (some duplicates have been removed)
permanent normal trade relations to russia. this past august russia joined the world trade organization, giving its members full access to russia's rapidly growing market. reduce tariffs, and ensure transparency when implementing trade measures. however, while foreign competitors are currently benefiting, the u.s. will not receive any of these benefits until congress authorizes the president to grant russia permanent normal trade relations. simply put, american companies, workers, and farmers are being put at a competitive disadvantage. last year my home state of michigan exported $225 million worth of goods to russia. despite many of its best products facing tough competition from foreign competitors. with this agreement in place, farmers and producers in my district will be assured of more predictable market access for the crops and arkansas urel goods, while manufacturers will enjoy reduced tariff rates for michigan-made vehicles and equipment. as the world trade organization member, russia has agreed to comply with the rule of law. though these reforms won't happen overnight, russia
a historic arms control agreement with russia which has reduced the number of nuclear weapons that are actively deployed, and he has rebalanced and refocused american foreign policy to the most important region of the world, the asia pacific region. on the whole i would have to give him a very high marks. >> i see. how would you assess romney's approach to foreign policy? >> well, that's a good question. it is not clear what will be romney's approach to foreign policy because i think there are two romneys. there is the hawkish romney who seems to be wanting to pursue a policy that considers certain states as enemies, where military action may be seriously contemplated and he has referred to nuclear iran and syria, russia, as a big adversaries and then there is the other romney that we saw in the presidential debate and this romney was a romney that was much more moderate, realistic, and a presidential candidate who used the word peace so many times and much more than president obama. so we will know until he takes office who will not true romney in terms of foreign policy. >>
nuclear stops, both the united states and russia to the point they're smaller than they used to be, but certainly sufficient right now. those are strategies of an earlier era and we need to think about new policies. explain. >> well, yes, that's exactly right. we got out of the cold war by building more nuclear weapons because it scared the daylights out of the other side, and frankly it scared the daylights out of us. we're not going to get out of this situation by building more weapons. if we built 50 new missiles it would not have an affect on north korea china or russia. we need new policieses. most forces have not been tested under realistic conditions in 20 years. it's basically junk in the attic. i'm not opposed to getting rid of most of it. we need to put out declarations of what the united states will do to prevent others were using nuclear weapons. so i'm very much in favor of the declaration that we will never use nuclear weapons first. what that opens up if someone does use nuclear weapons that suspends our pledge so we could use them to punish them. we need to redesig
to deescalate this conflict. the european union weighed in today as did russia. russia preparing a u.n. resolution calling for a cease fire. probably our closest ally abroad in matters of war and peace is britain, and they are taking the same line as president obama, although they are being even more direct about it. the foreign secretary saying that hamas bares responsibility for what's going on, but he warns that "a ground invasion of gaza would lose israel a lot of the international support they have in this situation." a ground invasion is more difficult for the international community to sympathize with or support. so the world, at least the world of the united states and our allies is pretty much speaking with one voice here. israel, stop the ground work thing. that's the message from the president. that's the message from allies. that's the message from the international community. that's the message from the europeans. that's the message from the egyptians. and even though our own president is traveling abroad in asia, that's the word from the mouth of our own president. ever
of russia? and china and the position of the other members of the security council. >> you know, i've talked to all of them. and i was pleasantly surprised that in spite of their, you know, what kofi annan called fingerpointing, they actually have all of them a reasonably responsible attitude. and all they need is really get together and try to find you know, stop pointing their fingers at the other guy. and really work out work out whatever disagreements they have and the process. >> rose: let's take russia, i have interviewed all the foreign ministers here at this table there a all kinds of issues that divide them. i don't think the russians, you correct me, are committed to assad. >> no, not at all. >> they're not offering-- they are not committed to him they are basically saying we think there has to be some kind of negotiation to solve this thing rather than -- >> what they are saying is that it has to be syrian process, syrian lead process which everybody agrees to. we are against military intervention from outside. and whatever the syrians agree to is welcome to us except perhaps if y
society, and you look at this map and you look at europe and russia. >> yes. europe is not just a debt crisis. we've been narcissistically focusing on a debt crisis. it's the western extrim city of the super continent and most changes in europe over the mill len ya have come from the east. they've come from the influx of peoples throughout the east. and we thought we had defeated that with the end of the cold war, that russia was out of it. but that's not the case. precisely because this belt of countries from estonia to bull gary are right next door to russia. russia will continue to be a factor in europe's evolution. if you look at russia, it's half the longitudes of the world but it's got less people than ban ga desh. it's been invaded by poles, electricity yanians, swedes. so russia still requires buffer zones in eastern europe and the caucuses. vladimir putin is not the totalitarian eastern giant the western union paints him as. his ne-yo imperialism is a function of his jeep geographical insecurity. poland, here in blue, may emerge as the real pivot state because, again, there's
now in terms of how will it be taken forward with russia and china? will there be confrontation? the question that's going to be asked and needs to be asked is because strategy is needed is to go to the russians and say basically, now what do you want? the president is there for four more years, no more elections, what is it that you want? deliver what the russians or not? cold war they want or what is -- what consequences of that? from what i understand the foreign minister of russia was meeting with the gulf ministers, the gcc ministers, i, from what my information is he did not give in. they are standing exactly where they were. this is not -- the strategy is needed. it is not a strategy, and the u.s., no matter how much we try to run away from that situation in syria and israel and iran, it's, yeah, light footed or heavy footed, leadership is needed. >> one follow-up question. do you see the current situation, you talked about the instability and opportunity as they say in america, an opportunity to change the channel. is it likely an opportunity for assad to change the chan
! >> the biggest geopolitical threat facing america you said russia. not al qaeda, you said russia. and the 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign policy back. (laughter and applause). >> jon: well, that was a little hackie. i mean that was -- that was a it will roasty. i wouldn't (bleep) your foreign policy with margaret thatcher's (bleep), come on! hickory dickory dock, your geopolitical understanding can suck my -- (laughter) sorry. that's -- no, please don't because then i'll do it again some night. (laughter) so the president had a good night. must have felt pretty confident because he was letting his professor or y'all side shine through. especially when it came to one country. >> we've created partnerships throughout the region to deal with extremism. in somalia, in yemen, in pakistan. >> jon: what? really? (laughter) pah-kee-stahn? really? suddenly you're a guy who's desperate to prove you once roomed with a foreign exchange student? (laughter) look, this is america, we don't use the pronunciation locally. we don't say may-hee-co or frahnce. mexico, france. pakistan. (laughter) all in
meaningful contributions now? the contribution does not have to be militarily? russia, i would suggest, should be called upon to step up and belly up to the u.n. security council. they should exert influence. day, i suggest, are the most influential at this time, and they have the ability, number one, to stop supporting this regime that is slaughtering its citizens, to stop, by its acquiescence, standing on the sidelines and letting it happen while the rest of the world realize its hands. >> how do you accomplish that? >> i think they can assert influence in syria. they are one of the few countries that really can at this point. iran, forget it. >> how? what they can support the security camera resolutions, which thus far we have been unable to achieve -- security council resolutions, which we have been unable to achieve. >> what i think we are talking about here is, where do we intervene? where do we not? what is the rationale for doing so or to not do so? i think it's got to be based on one fundamental principle -- our interests, our values, and our values are our interests. i say ab
] and in russia. 7% of the world's energy is here. -- 70% of the world's energy is here. briefly on human-rights, i do believe actually the great difference between democracy and dictatorship is simply this -- a soft assets, but an important one. and it does not have human- rights that i necessarily proud of, but india does have accountability. china can only become a modern nation if it permits democracy and if it permits secularism, that is equality and presence of trade. until then, it can be successful, but not monitored. >> i want to say three things quickly. i want to follow up on the admirals' comments. it is remarkable to many in the u.s. military that the u.s. is not ratified the convention. we had it pretty sincere effort to bring afford to the senate. we worked a couple of the votes short. i think senator mikulski for her support. i hope we will be allowed to take that up again and get that done as a country. it is challenging to make the case we're making, which is that these potential conflicts over territory should be resolved on the basis of principles when the final conven
? the united states and russia or is israel going to give them up? doesn't seem likely. >> listen, this was first thought about in many speeches made by president ronald reagan back in the early 1980s. he made these beautiful eloquent speeches about it. this was his dream. he didn't accomplish it. there was a big summit where he was meeting with the president of russia gorbachev and so this was his dream and now we cut to today where president obama is pickling up the mantel and one of his first speech, the first in prague, he made a big speech about the elimination of nuclear weapons. in his first term, he accomplished passing the new start treaty. i do believe this is a passion of the president's, president obama's. there's a lot of things, he has a nuclear summit meeting in d.c. which pledged the elimination of nuclear weapons. >> cenk: they did this treaty and made progress. that's great news. i am curious really, like is zero possible? >> it absolutely is possible. again, to go back about five years ago they called the four states, they used to call the four mothersman, kissi
in syria. we've seen three security council vetoes by russia and china causing many to call the u.n., essentially, ineffective in this crisis. so it's been the interplay of these three factors, i would argue, that has led syria down the path that it has taken. in terms of u.s. policy, u.s. policy is based on the objective of having assad, as president obama called for, step aside. this was back in august of 2011. the problem with u.s. policy is that it has continually been at conflict with itself in terms of how to achieve that objective while also achieving or protecting u.s. national security interests in the region. namely, i would argue, very understandable concerns about, about the impact of unseating assad and the potential for massive instability across the region. so at the crux of u.s. policy on syria, i would argue, has resided this tension of wanting assad to go but being concerned and fearful about how to achieve that objective while also seeking to maintain stability in such a volatile region of the world. now, the debate right now on syria is focused largely on this
countries like china and russia, along with our traditional allies and a number of other states across the world have stepped up to impose the sanctions together. and you saw in the intervention in libya. we're not only our traditional european allies but our arab friends also stepped in to intervene in their own backyard. that is not leading from behind. that is leading in a way that enables others to step up, share the burdens, and be part of the solution. i think that, you know, this president has adopted a very strong and smart approach to the american leadership using all of the instruments of our national power. the military, when we must, but also much stronger on diplomacy, economic instruments and so forth. when it comes to defense and defense spending, i think this is a big difference between the two campaigns. this president has put forward a very, you know, a defense budget that is strategic in that sense it is driven by strategy but it's also driven by the legal constraints of the law that has been put in place, the budget control act those passed by a bipartisan majority
, china, france, germany, russia, known as the p5+1, and the united kingdom have tried to negotiate with iran over its nuclear program. of sides have fumbled the opportunities to reduce the risks of nuclear-armed iran, and to prevent the risk of war, to reduce the risk of war over that nuclear program. since 2007, the u.s. and western intelligence agencies have assessed that iran is nuclear capable, meaning that iran has a scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so. and those intelligence agencies continue to this day to assess that iran has not yet made a decision to do so. intelligence agencies and independent experts also believe that starting from today iran will require several months to acquire enough this'll material for just one bomb and still more time to build a deliverable nuclear weapon. secretary of defense and a estimate it would take two to three years to do so. in the latest international atomic energy agency report, based on its ongoing inspections iran's nuclear facility, particularly the fordo enrichm
, but you are engaging with countries for whom doing that is much simplerlike china, like russia, the state capital company where, you know, your company is your arm not only of foreign economic policy, but of foreign policy full stop. how do you operate in a world with players who are operating under these very different rules? >> well, it's something we do spend quite a bit of time thinking about this. it's not all about china. there are issues with other countries like -- >> russia? >> -- like russia, but not just those two. and the lines are really blurred in terms of where the state ends and where capital and corporate interests begin for many countries. at the state department, we've really tried to create mechanisms through multilateral institutions like the oecd has come up with a platform for competitive neutrality which looks at the different ways that governments can act to subsidize or to give favor to their own state-owned or state-led interests and provide some recommendations for engaging in a platform of competitive neutrality. it's a different way of thinking about the chal
the supply delivery business to russia, they left the gulf, those small number of advisors in saudi arabia and in iran stuck around for decades, and it's that role that really represented america's influence that stemmed from world war ii, the pro longed war in the gulf. >> host: professor, i think of the british when i think of the involvement in the middle east. when and how did they step back their involvement? >> guest: well, with regard to the gulf, the brits arrived in the 1800s. and it represented their quest to provide order to a part of -- on the flanks to their imperial interests in india. the southern coast of the gulf had been called in the 1800s, the pirate coast, and the constantly feuding tribes fused with one another, which spill out into the sea-born approaches to india, and result in attacks on india, and possibly resulting weakness that might bring another great power. so the british found themselves pulled into the gulf in the 1800s. not to colonize as they did further to the east in india but, rather to maintain order there, and they did, with a relatively small amount
teenage daughter, she said, what's wrong with russia? i said it's not russia, the soviet union. she said once that? that it was a big thing back there in the late '80s and early 90s before it toppled. we were geared up to fight in the most of us had never really considered iraq on yahoo! saddam hussein was. and after that war was over, which when he was a foregone conclusion. the terrorism thing took us all by surprise but we just thought they were gravel rows, never give them too much credit. all the buildings at khobar towers were built by the bin laden construction company. they have the bin laden stands and all the -- how's that for irony? but after that things kind of change. the world trade center bombings and september 11, of course we all know what happened that day. i was actually flying that morning. we had come back from the middle east from another rotation. monday, september 10 was her first day back. and the morning of september 11 i was actually falling, and i've come down very, very early, and somebody said you've got to look at this. i've been everything as i looked at t
arab ya and the united states and russia and the european countries. what happened in lebanon -- if left to themselves, lebanon -- which is another sad story -- they might have been able to compromise and come together as they did on a number of occasion before re '7s and '80s, and work things out somehow. find some sort of system and muddle through this. but as they say in real estate, location is everything. and lebanon being between syria and israel, and of course syria itself being on the border of israel, lebanon, iraq, south of turkey, you're not going to be -- you cannot be the switzerland over the middle east. are going to have outside influences which usually exacerbate the situation and lengthen the time of the civil war. >> and so let's talk a little bit now, shifting the perspective, to the personal connections that you have to the house of assad. i would love for you to give us a good feel for, who is this man who is the president and how did he change over the time that you've known him? seems like there was a definitive time around 2005-2006 that you say he shif
efforts to persuade russia d china to work with us at the u.n. security council. i will take every opportunity to urge my russian and chinese colleagues to support the political and diplomatic solution to the conflict in syria. without such a solution everything that they and we most fear is coming closer, including ever-greater loss of life, instability in neighboring countries and an opportunity for extremists to pursue their own ends. the basis for such a political settlement is clear: a credible alternative to the assad regime is emerging that has the growing support of the arab league, the european union, the united states and an in's cooing number -- increasing number of countries, and we have an agreed basis for transition which all permanent members of the u.n. security council signed up to in june. but in the absence of that political and diplomat you can solution, we will not rule out any option, and in accordance with international law where it might save innocent lives in syria and prevent the destabilization of a region that remains critical to the security ofhe united
, the house had one bill on the agenda, the bill that would normalize u.s. trade relations with russia and that passed by a vote of 365-43. the senate has yet to take up their version of the measure. a capitol hill reporter fills in the details. >> sports of this bill normalizing trade relations with russia are saying it's long overdue and good for the nation's economy. why is that? >> well, it >> it will hopefully double exports to russia from the united states. it will go across a broad group of products. manufacturers are backing it strongly. it could be airplanes and parts associated with that. locomotives, chemicals, food, clothing. it seems russia likes u.s. products. we expect there to be good and quick growth. >> how is lining up to oppose it? >> it has wide support on capitol hill. even the administration backs the bill. it does seem to have broad support across washington and the country for businesses that want to export products to russia. >> with all of the legislation and that remains to be done in the lame-duck session, this is the first one. what are the prospects in th
. the question was about to russia's role in asia pacific. russia was this year's host of apac. it will participate at the east asia summit. it is an important player in the asia-pacific region. both economically and diplomatically. it will continue to be so. >> regarding the president's trip to burma. human-rights leaders expressed concerns that this visit was too fast, too generous. their main concern here is that the administration is far leveraging the opportunity of the first presidential visit which can only be once to press for new reforms. has the administration been able to leverage this a budget -- visit for tangible foreign measures? would you like to be secretary of state? thank you. [laughter] >> thank you for those questions, josh. with respect to burma -- there have been remarkable progress. since we saw the president called them cookers of progress in the summer of 2011. you have seen the release of prisoners, you have seen the easing of the media restrictions, you have seen the infighting into the political process of the parties. we have consulted with stakeho
where it was just the united states and russia, and now i think we have to drain the swamp. there is no other way, a sane way ahead >> you worry about rogue states, of course. you worry about terrorists. you worry about accidents. have you a movie "countdown to zero" which makes this argument in a really compelling way, and it telling the story of one russian man who actually tried to sell nuclear material to al qaeda. >> yes. >> the vignette of that was rather a low level worker in a uranium plant in the former soviet union, and he knew that by taking -- he could secrete very small amounts of highly enriched uranium, and he had a buyer that was a representative al qaeda, and the whole reason that he wanted to sell that was so that he could get a refrigerator. i mean, for him that was what -- that's all it was to him, a means to, you know, make his personal life a little better. >> queen noor, when you look at this and say you want the u.s. to lead the way and russia to lead the way in reducing nuclear arsenals. the counterargument is wait a minute all the bad actors in the
's wrong with russia? i said it's not russia, it's the soviet union. she said was that? but it's a big thing back in the late 80s and early 90s before it toppled. we were geared up to fight them and most of us have never considered iraq or knew who saddam hussein was. after that war was over, which when it was a foregone conclusion, the terrorists and they took us all by surprise. we thought they were rabble-rousers. never given too much credit. interestingly enough, all the buildings were built by the bin laden construction company and had the bin laden stamps and buildings. how's that for irony? after that, things kind of change. the world trade in their bombing and september 11, we all know what happened that day. i was flying up winning. we came back from the middle east from another rotation in the monday, september 10 was their first day back. the morning of september 11th is actually flying in it come down very, very early. somebody said hey come you got to look at this. remember the key not the first tower building, what morons could hit tower of that size on a clear day? i tho
four months. she landed in kazakhstan tonight along with astronauts from japan and russia. president barack obama monitoring the conflict in the middle east as he travels through asia. today in thailand, he said the u.s. is working with all parties to end violence. he made history becoming the first u.s. president to visit myanmar. the president wraps up his three-nation asian tour with a stop in cambodia. >>> state department updating hugh it deploys security for diplomatic facilities around the globe now. secretary of state hillary clinton and the defense department will monitor where forces are deployed so they can travel to help during emergencies, if needed. the change comes amid congressional hearings over how the obama administration handled security crisis in benghazi, libya. i'm don lemon. see you back here at 10 p.m. eastern. fortunately we've got ink. it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our business. this is the only thing we've ever wanted to do and ink helps us do it. make your
statute and it caused turmoil between estonia and russia and lo and behold if it didn't become a lot of cyberattacks on mr. linea shutting down their telephone networks commissioning down their banking systems, websites and so on. government services and so on. it was never proven of his russia doing it, but the conclusion is that the very least of his russian hackers. in the end, nato, who is very active in helping estonia understand this, nato step dad and ultimately there's a cyberdefense center both selection. estonia is the most connected country in europe. they are a leader in the government. that's when of the reasons why estonia is super interesting. i don't know how much my time -- am i good? >> you are good. >> i'm going to spend a couple minor on other ones. okay, so there's lots of incidents in my side of e-mail, targeted attacks to u.s. satellites. it looks like someone from china. i'm not saying chinese government, but someone through china for mr. cheney servers appear to have been doing the proof of concept. they were trained to see whether they could get him into the
to their estimates, will overtake saudi arabia and russia as the world's top oil producer by 02017. beneficiary by 2017. the i.e.a. chief economist told a news conference in london that he believed the united states would overtake russia as the biggest gas producer by a significant margin by 2015 and by 2017 would become the world's largest oil producer producer. will this prediction hold out? i don't know. but are we on our way towards significant gains in terms of our energy independence? yes, we are. the language in section 313, which this amendment proposes to strike -- i want to be very clear about this -- does not affect programs that have been discussed here in such areas as hydrogen fuel as a fuel of choice for engine design or doing away with r&d dollars. it is just not true. it states in part that this restriction goes to the cost of producing or purchasing alter national fuels if they exceed the cost of producing traditional fossil fuel that would be used for the same purpose -- that's very narrowly defined. there is a second paragraph in section 313 that goes to an exception to this
.s. will become the world's top oil producer by the end of the decade, surpassing saudi arabia and russia. the report says that new technologies like fracking are research new reserves of oil in the u.s. the report says the u.s. could stop importing oil by 2035. in the middle east, syria's civil war has now touched israel. for the second straight day, a shell from syria landed in israeli territory. today an israeli tank destroyed a syrian armored vehicle. israel is just the latest neighbor pulled into the conflict. turkey has returned fire repeatedly sincereian shells first landed there in october. turkey, lebanon, jordan, and iraq now house more than 400,000 syrian refugees. it was 19 monthsing that a protest movement rose up to overthrow the dictatorship in syria, but there is no end in sight. lance armstrong has resigned from the board of his cancer charity. two weeks after sandy, why are so many people still in the dark? and we'll show you the jewels recovered from the "titanic" when the "cbs evening news" continues. you spend weeks planning it.] you spend all day cooking it. so why s
.s. intelligence has identified three command and control servers. one is in russia and one in the states that are sending commands to this virus and the u.s. intelligence has now at a later concluded with a high degree of confidence that this virus was developed by state-sponsored actors in excess land, and not in the high degree of confidence that there is a shadow out there that they have another target and that this virus is not going to stay on the leal companies that could move -- oil companies that could move. if you want to start? >> i think so, given the "washington post" sources we don't have to worry about. [laughter] but now i think one, the general realization that we have not seen everything yet sold, second, typical of the cyber type of activities they are probably most crippling in undermining confidence over the public so they need courses of action to address this in the public and how they will do this we haven't really gotten the sense of the external overseas type of the implications from the standpoint of other damage out there. we need to know from the intelligence
area of the world in which most of threats and challenges. it's not a rising china. it's not a russia seeking to regain its power and stature. real threat to american interests seems to be coming from a broken and dysfunctional middle east in which we're stuck and his problem. and had mitt romney become president as well, middle east is divided into migraines on one hand and root canal operations on the other. there are not a lot of opportunities for solutions. >> gregg: pick your poison. you are right. let's talk specifics. let's talk about iran first. you believe that the president should explore and exhaust diplomacy before you are taking military action. you are very specific. let's put this on the screen. you write this, start with an interim arrange. that deals with the issue of enrichment and forestalls resign to acquire highly enriched uranium to construct a nuke. how can you convinces them to do that? >> the problem is once a society gets to enrich uranium and a assemble a nuclear weapon. how do you forestall it? you can't bomb it out of existence. unless you can change the r
called a nuclear threat was a real problem. during those days, the cold war really focused on russia at the united states, the two powerhouses. fast forward, you have vietnam. vietnam is an adventure into itself in terms of north and south vietnam. many of you may have served. and you move fast forward and we're going to have russia, the berlin wall came down. we will have benefits of that -- of the peace dividend. it was multiple stands. pick a stand. it became a challenge in terms of stability of government resources and the data we knew about this particular companies. move on forward, 9/11 happened. everyone of you remember is where you were on 9/11. i was on the steps of the pentagon. i literally walked out of the building that day and i was there for meeting and remember hearing on that gorgeous blue day and absolute eerie sound. like a plane had taken a wrong turn. lo and behold, the next thing i knew i was on the bottom stairs and i am thinking, how did i get from the top to bottom of the stairs? the plane hit the building. i did not know in where i was sitting at that point
job in libya but since then china and russia is walking all over us. i am not sure she is the strongest advocate. i think she is more political operative more than anything else when it comes to benghazi. i make a prediction. i think there will be a few democrats reluctant to vote for somebody involved what i think is a national security debacle. again, i've been on the other side of this when a republican administration is telling you everything is fine when it's not. >> [inaudible]. >> not yet, no. >> [inaudible]. >> i don't know. again, that's all, you see all, as he said earlier, all these things are flying around. somebody was doing this, somebody was doing that and for example, there's this, the latest is interesting, is this person who was associated with general petraeus said, at some gathering there was two or three libyans being held in the safe house. now the cia has said that's just patently false. all these things are flying around and we don't know. that's why we need an investigation. last one. yeah? >> [inaudible] . >> well, first of all, i think that is
, others is an autocratic regime. i talk a little bit about russia and china as autocratic regimes in the book, and i don't want see any problem with the -- i don't see any problem with the united states pushing those countries if they can, not by force. we could do it or not do it, that's a policy decision. and then, of course, there's radical islam which also is a type of -- would like to establish sharia as the constitutional structure in some countries. so there are different types of political systems, and i'm saying the philadelphia sovereignty is my preferred system. and also i think it's the best system. >> thank you for your presentation. i thought it was excellent. we see this stuff happening all the time, but you've captured it in very vivid, contrasting subjects, sovereignty or submission. and in the u.n. now there are other things being negotiated that would further weaken our sovereignty or cause us to be sub missive. so i'm wondering what your actions are. when i look at the country, some huge percentage wouldn't even know what you're talking about. then you get into
from the beginning. i thought he may have voted the same way barack did. he went from labeling russia, which he recently called the soviet union, labeling russia are most significant geopolitical foe -- let me tell you something, he also was opposed to the new start treaty which every single solitary former republican secretary of state, republican national security adviser, republican secretary of defense was for. he was against it. he said he would have never supported it. all of a sudden -- i tell you. it is amazing. we can work with russia, we can be very close with russia. [laughter] he went from harshly criticizing us to saying we will and we will turn over for responsibility to the afghan military at the end of 2014. [applause] he went from saying we should never have set a timetable, he would not do that. i had a debate, too, with ryan. [applause] in my day, he was talking about more troops in the east, more americans would be there -- we should not have set a date. then along comes romney -- my generation has gone on the wings of a snow white dove, preaching -- preaching love
be proposing this tax that would hurt lower-income people the most. other countries, china, india, russia, brazil, none of them would propose that on their own citizens. it is the kind of approach that american enterprise systems not have to have on them, nor working families. >> thank you. i apologize for skipping your rebuttal the next question goes to tim kaine. you have mentioned that already. you noted president obama us plan calls for them to -- obama's plan. are you saying you would not, under any circumstance, vote for an obama budget or an obama bill that came to the senate that says we will cut the bush tax cuts and let them expire? >> i think my proposal is the right proposal. i will not vote for of bills that i know have a no chance of passing the house. you saw what happened this summer. they let the bush tax cuts expire over 250,000. full knowledge nothing would happen. the house passed their bill to make the task cuts permanent. they sent it to the senate with full knowledge it would not happen. the time for the no compromise positions is over. we need a compromise. a year
to be ready to go to the mat to make sure the assad regime will stay in power. that is russia and iran. the result could be an assad that stays in power, an iranian victory that will mark the good for our efforts to move iran to the negotiating table on nuclear weapons, and, in wide portions of syria, and no man's land like the somalia were militants associate with al-qaeda will find a new home. we already see some of this. this is another reason why the administration needs to engage through military means of necessary directly or indirectly providing weapons and things like no-fly zones. we need to do more urgently and this thing will slip out of control. at best, in syria, we will see an emerging shia-sunni fissure across the middle east that will be followed by fighting. but a touch on iraq -- it has not received too much commentary you -- either in the debates in the campaign or even in some of the discussions about the post-election foreign policy priority but it needs to be a priority for several reasons. iraq is a success. it is because of the efforts of the united states and o
so without opposition. while it is true that russia and china did not interfere with the rest going into iraq in that way, the iraqi people did. the iraqi people were educated, mobilized. they had a big pharmaceutical industry, petrochemicals, and they were wired, educated. they inflicted damage along the u.s. military along the way, both from sunni and shiite. many iraqis never accepted the idea of a foreign occupation of their country, and it failed. the project for a new american century, formulated as a proposition that the u.s. could be an empire on the old british model, that crashed and burned because people are now mobilized, politically and socially. it was the lack of mobilization in the old 19th century, when people were not literate, were not connected with each other -- ok, and maybe the british empire could exist. but that is not the situation any more. what i am saying is, petraeus was sent to these countries with the project from the new american century, the big new conservative thinkers who thought up these kinds of projects for occupation and reformulation of coun
on in the distribution of the economy and china, conditions in russia. there are a number of problems anew environment. we have not developed a coherent approach because in the first term you learn your job. that is the challenge that the administration is facing. >> people look to the united states for leadership. they look to us because we have for so long been in a position where we've been able because of our resources and military strength, because of our values, we've been able to keep the peace. we have been able to make sure that enemies feared us and make sure allies could count on us. with we step back as we did during president obama's first term and i'm afraid we're going to do the next term ease back and you see when there a vacuum. people that don't share our interests diving into that vacuum. >> i traveled all over the middle east. every leader i talked to believe the united states is weak in leaving. they are having to accommodate to that eventuality. whether it be the saudis or you name the country they are accommodating to american weakness and withdrawal. that means that they accomm
, the stans, russia, china, all the countries that have interest in afghanistan. their calculus would be affected by our signing a bilateral agreement. >> so i think it is a very important answer. i have the same feeling. i think islamabad is the first capital that would be affected by the bilateral agreement. tying some elements of the pakistani government to terrorist groups. they are hedging their bets for what happens the day after we leave. if we're not leaving presumably, they lose that argument. but, you know, there is -- every situation is different. i can't help but relate this to iraq. nobody wanted our discussions with the iraqi government for a presence in iraq after our troops left to fail more than iran did. and in fact, they were working on that. the fact that it did fail and we have no continuing presence in iraq i think is part of the reason why iran's influences spread there and so incidentally has al qaeda re- emerged again. i think those are warnings to us about how important it is to do exactly what you have called for, which is to have a good -- much smaller but
. >> john: you grew up in russia. >> grew up in russia. didn't have the hostess. came here. >> john: you eat only healthy food. >> that's right. other russian flavors hostess doesn't make. so i've steered clear. and my understanding is nobody really -- i don't really understand, nobody still eats hostess as a practice of -- if we want baked goods we buy hostess. am i wrong? >> john: no one eats hostess caifntle. >> they do eat the coast es cakes but it is not seen as a delicious dessert. >> john: it is. twinkies have a shelf life of seven years because they have so many preservatives in them. i want to feed someone nothing but twinkies the last ten years of their life and see how long it takes their body to decompose when they die. between twinkies and ho hos which dick morris is a fan and chock codials, i don't know if they make those anymore but the cupcakes are still huge. hostess sells wonder bread so maybe you don't have kids -- >> don't have kids. >> john: children still love this crap. >> childre
putin of russia, and the president of spain. with that i'll take your questions. >> a couple questions about the scandal that many of us are now covering, one specific and a bigger picture one. general allen we are learning more about skess about him and the pentagon investigation and alleged behavior does the president have faith that general allen can continue to lead the war in afghanistan. he's under investigation by the pentagon. >> can i tell you that the president thinks very highly of general allen and his service to his country. as well as the job he has done in afghanistan. at the request of the secretary of defense, the president has put on hold general allen's notion as supreme allied commander europe, pending the investigation of his conduct by the department of defense i.d. the president remains focused on fully supporting our extraordinary troops and coalition partners in afghanistan who general allen continues to lead as he has done so ably for over a year. meanwhile, the president has nominated general dunford to be the next commander and reiterates his belief that the
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 120 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)